Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This toolkit guides civil society in identifying and countering human rights justifications by states, suggesting critical intervention methods.
This Civil Society Toolkit for Human Rights Justifications, developed under the EU Horizon HRJust project, addresses a critical shift in the global human rights paradigm. Traditionally conceived as a "shield" to protect individuals from state power, human rights are increasingly being appropriated by states as a "top-down" tool of governance. The toolkit focuses on the emergence of Human Rights Justifications (HRJs)—instances where states use the language of human rights not to expand protections, but to defend and legitimize restrictive actions and decisions. Designed for civil society organisations (CSOs), governmental agencies, and individuals, the toolkit provides a comprehensive framework for identifying and counteracting these measures. It explores various categories of HRJs, such as the misapplication of international doctrines or the use of paternalistic rhetoric to undermine individual liberties. The toolkit offers an "arsenal" of practical strategies, including systematic monitoring, proactive legislative advocacy, and strategic litigation. By providing concrete checklists and analyzing real-world examples such as migration legislation and climate justice, the toolkit offers avenues to explore to empower CSOs to act as vital watchdogs, ensuring that human rights remain a robust protection for the individual against state overreach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carlson et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: